Re: OWNERSHIP: stakeholder governance

[Deborah Groban Olson <dgo@esoplaw.com>]

Joe:

        

Conflict
per se is not what I am trying to avoid. I am trying to create space for
people with different objectives to work on related issues and projects.
Some people do not want to involve themselves in theoretical debates.
They want to talk about strategy, research, public relations and tactics
surrounding some particular set of proposals they are already willing to
support. Others are trying to decide what policies they want to support.
I want to give both groups room to talk and work with the people they
choose to engage.

        

I would
like to create some more focused discussions around specific proposals
amongst supporters of those proposals. Perhaps it is too soon.  I
know of several people interested in trying to actualize SQPQ. Do we need
a separate discussion for that? I am happy to do that in Homestead. I am
happy to entertain discussion about specific stakeholder governance
mechanisms in Homestead as well. But I do not think Homestead is the
place for the doctrinal theoretical debate which we moved to Ownership.
We are also trying to find a less culturally biased, and thus more
meaningful name than "Homestead".
Deb
 At 12:24 PM 5/24/00 -0400, you wrote:
>    
> What is the purpose of the stakeholder governance list?  Is the
> purpose to avoid conflict such that people of all walks of life will have
> an opportunity to speak?  If so, then I think that creating another
> list is a waste of time.  People who join the group will present
> their ideas.  Those that want to speak will; and those that feel
> meek and fearful of presenting will not.
>  
>     I recognize Deb's goal of
> trying to arrive at politically feasible solutions within the ownership
> group.  From my postings and questions, (which were prior to her
> statements) I tried to ask questions and present ideas that focused
> attention on politics.  Not focusing attention on politics would be
> difficult for me given that I am a graduate student in public
> policy.  Recently, there were specific responses focused on politics
> and political feasibility.
>  
>     If I read the tone of the
> ownership list correctly, then the contestants seem to take a more
> moderate stand within the discussion now.  At this point, the
> participants seem to remove some armor and cede that agreement on issues
> exists.  In one threaded discussion, the participants mentioned each
> other and how they, in their separate lives, praised others within the
> group publicly and exalted their solutions.  This tone died
> momentarily, but the theme re-emerged recently.
>  
> Sincerely,
> Joseph Doggett